Profile for Packman

Don't understand your statement about Monica's thong. Clinton had been catting around for years - she did not cause him to do anything he didn't want to do - but she sure showed what she was! If you look deep enough you'll almost always find that those who have not been "caught yet" are just lucky or have covered their tracks REALLY well. Call me cynical...............

fact-checker snopes dot com in a some mid- and late-january posts mentions the video clip that koolaidliar and whipperdupe are brandishing. Snopes says it was from Dec. 15 and contains confusing and false information, and snopes reiterates the facts of the case including a Jan. 23 statement by Trooper Vance repeating relevant facts about the rifle in the school and the shotgun in the trunk, which Vance says need reiterating because certain folks were spreading false information.

Packman: Thought you would find my response interesting. Couldn't agree more with you on the abortion issue.

Morebeer: Again, the criminal code at A.C.A. 5-1-102(13)(B)(i)(b) defines an unborn child as a living fetus of twelve (12) weeks or greater gestation. Thus, an abortion after 12 weeks could be called murder. Further, the A.C.A. 5-10-101 states that one way to commit capital murder is to "knowingly cause the death of a PERSON fourteen (14) years of age or younger". A.C.A. 5-1-102(13)(B)(i)(a) states that "as used in 5-10-101 - 5-10-105 (murder statutes) "person" also includes an unborn child in utero at ANY stage of development." Why is this important? Because if a ONE week pregnant mother is killed, then the assailant will be charged with TWO counts of murder, but if the mother has an abortion, somehow that is not murder. There is no rational explanation as to why it is murder in one case, but not the other.

Yes. I met Shoffner over 20 years ago when she was working on a Republican campaign. I'm not going to give you the guy's name, because I know he does not want his name associated with hers. I did not know her well, and I have no idea about her politics.

Packman : I do not know if this is private. Cervical cancer is much, much, much more common among straight women than lesbians. Because it is caused by a sexually transmitted virus, HPV... and so what does that prove to you? Just an FYI.

Please see my comments on the board. No matter how many straw men you set up and knock down it won't change. Gays are asking for protection for marriage. We protect people's rights to religious practice and to speech and to make decisions about their lives that do not interfere with other people's rights and do not go against established law. We do not only protect people for inborn traits. The pedophilia argument has been made and answered. Children are not able to consent to sex and so having sex with them violates them and is against the law. We are not talking about protecting states of mind, we are not talking about protecting itches or urges, we are talking about protecting behavior and life choices. If two people want to marry that is their choice, their behavior, their self-determination. Their choice does not impinge on your civil rights and if it does not break the law... why should it be forbidden. In many states it is the law. So you are purposely distorting my comments. That is called knocking down a straw man. Logic is against you. Please think things through before you respond with more empty words making the same discredited arguments or knocking down your straw men.

Seriously if you are going to comment on the thread, read what has already been said so we do not have to keep repeating. Pedophilic behavior is illegal because children cannot consent. We discussed this already. Please Please Please do not just keep rehashing. It is a waste of your time and mine.

Pack: Laws are being passed in some states to force women to carry to term fetuses that are almost certain to die. That is what I mean by seriously damaged. I am against abortion so take your snide stupid "trying to bait the pro-abortion lefty" remarks elsewhere. I do not think we should kill fetuses but I also do not think we should kill women just to appease ideologues.---As Debra on Everybody Loves Raymond likes to say "just call yourself an idiot."

Pack: Are you a moron? I am against abortion. What part of that statement do you fail to understand? I use the term fetus because that is what they are. There is no other word. Tell me what word you want me to use? Let me be clear. I do not think women should be forced to give birth to dead babies. ------If there is a choice between the life of a woman who is alive and has relationships in the world and an unborn child then I think we should chose to keep the woman alive. -----However, some support laws where there is No Choice, meaning the child will be born dead or will die shortly after birth and yet these sick people --like you ---think we should still risk women's lives. The only reason you can justify is this is pure hatred of women. Yes there are laws in place in some states that would even force a woman to carry to term a baby who was certain to die. Is there something ambiguous in your mind about the term CERTAIN TO DIE?----You sir are a pure moron if you fail to understand the English language. CERTAIN TO DIE. It is clear.------Again I am against abortion. Except when mom's life is at stake. We should not let women die to satisfy sick murderers. Are you a sick murderer who thinks women should die? It seems you are. Or you would not be picking a fight with me. Nor should we force women to carry babies who are certain to die shortly after birth. ------Ya know some would say we have to be civil and set a good example for creeps like you. Some say "do not stoop to their level" and other such nonsense. But trolls (insert your name here) take good intentions and decency, they eat them, they digest them, and they hand you back a smelly pile of poop. I say a fair exchange is one where I give back what I get. I start by being decent. If I get decent back, I continue to be decent. If I get smelly poop back I return smelly poop. Fair exchange.-----So one more time for the moron (there is the smelly poop): I am against abortion. But I am more against killing women who have parents, and husbands and children. So if a woman's life is at stake I am in favor of saving her life. In addition, if a baby is certain to die, I am in favor of not risking the woman's life and health to give birth to a dead child. Are we clear?

Pack: let me help you out some more. If we start with 40 million uninsured and we insure 25 million of those people (as estimated by the CBO) that means 62.5% of uninsured people getting insurance. So your claim of a 25% accomplishment does not ring true by your own data. Maybe a math class?

Look jerk: you asked me to clarify what I meant by "seriously damaged fetus" and I clarified by saying "almost certain to die". There was no moving the goalpost jackass, just a clarification. No, Downs Syndrome Children are not almost certain to die and therefore not seriously damaged. Is this hard for you to understand you pile of crap? You just want to act like a jerk to have fun. You are not impressing anyone. I do not see you adopting any Down's Syndrome children, that might interfere with your Jack Daniels consumption and your absolutely creepy harassment of people who even agree with you!!! I am against abortion. What part of that sentence did you not stinking understand? That does not mean I think women's lives count for ZERO as you and your ilk obviously do.

PACK: Seriously damaged embryo = certain to die = dead baby. There was never any movement of the goal post. I do not consider people with Down's syndrome to be seriously damaged and I am truly sorry that you do consider them to be damaged.

Packman: I said over and over and over and over that by the term SERIOUSLY DAMAGED I mean "Certain to die". It is not morally ambiguous. It is as clear as clear can be. We SHOULD not force women to give birth to children who are so damaged that they are CERTAIN TO DIE. That is not a moral thing to do. It is your thing to do, it is not moral. "Certain to die" means "certain to die". I did not change the goal posts, I clarified my meaning several times and yet you still do not get it. ---The moment I said seriously damaged YOUR MIND went straight to Down's Syndrome which tells me you think these people are seriously damaged or why would you have gone there and stayed there for days? Obviously you see them as seriously damaged. ----- I have clarified a dozen times at least that for me Seriously Damaged MEANS "CERTAIN TO DIE". No ambiguity. That is what I meant by it. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW? You can insist all you want that I did not mean what I have repeatedly told you that ---It is HARASSMENT to tell me over and over and over and over and over that I did not mean what I have told you that I did mean. This is why no one here likes you. No One. Your pilot is not here. No One here likes you because you put words into other people's mouths, you harass them, and then you pretend it is all Reasoned Debate. It is not.

You fool no one you lying sack of crap. You repeatedly told me that I wanted to abort Downs Syndrome kids. Repeatedly F'ING insisted that was what I mean when I said "seriously damaged". You don't think that is insulting? I have a Downs kid, jack ass. Catch a clue. Grow a brain and some morality. All you do is launch personal attacks, you just try and make them sound like "debate". No one is fooled but you.

Packman You moron. Zimmermann was following Martin with a GUN. Somebody threatens me with a gun I may attack them too. -----Zimermann called 911 some 40 times in 8 years before the Martin episode.--Zimmerman has a restraining order on him from his girlfriend. The evidence was ALWAYS that he was unstable.---As for "evidence" Martin attacked. There were two eyewitnesses and only two. One of them killed the other. What is it about this fact that you do not understand?

Zimmerman had a gun and he was asked NOT to follow Martin by the police. Maybe Martin felt threatened? Are black men who are being followed by people with guns really not allowed t feel threatened? Would you feel threatened in this situation? Sure you would. At the vey least Zimmermann was reckless. He endangered both their lives with his gung ho pretend I am a cop routine. 40 calls to 911? That is insane

So what we have is one witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. How does this translate into an attack? How do we know that Zimmerman did not initiate? How do we know he did not pull his gun on him? How d we know Martin was not simply defending himself? That is right. We don't. Fact, when one man follows another with a gun and the man he follows ends up dead... likely the man with the gun did something he should not have.

Packman: First, I suggested disincentives. Second as I pointed out numerous times every time and place in the entire human history poor people have reproduced more than the rich. Find one country and one time in history when this is not true. You cannot. It is instinct, not incentives. And I suggested free birth control (implantable is good) and an agreement that once you get money for a child you get no more. I posted many ideas here, unlike you. You do not read other posts, you just want to hear yourself babble. You have offered NO IDEAS. You have no ideas and you never offer ideas. Except to vote for the GOP.---I offered many ideas in several posts. Go back and look. You only make claims that defy the data. And you did NOT blame incentives you said Some people are responsible and some are not.

And education is part of the environment so it is all NUTURE (nature refers to genes, nurture to environment). You are not only an unrepentant liar you are one of the dumbest SOBs I have ever encountered on the plant.

Packman : Nice try but Mozarky --the conservative -- started the name calling. So you only prove my thesis and that thesis is that conservatives always resort to childish taunts and ad hominem attacks and then when you return the same behavior back they cry foul. That was my thesis and you just proved it again. Yes, if you start name calling I will give it back. I have zero obligation to meet your creepy behavior with kindness. You prove this point again and again and again and you never do seem to learn. I always start by being polite. If someone gives me enough crap I give it back. I feel no guilt over this, nor should I. So, try again.

Your claim about free speech is nonsense. Watch Fox news. They attack all sorts of speech. Paul is writing for the ADG. In what way is Free Speech being curtailed for him? He writes a syndicated column read all over the country and you are claiming that he does not have free speech? No one has a right to be free from criticism. No one has a right to speak and insist that others agree. What you and your conservative brethern prove is that you do not understand Free Speech. You think free speech means you have a right to criticize other people's ideas but they do not have a right to criticize yours. ````Greenberg would be the first to tell you that his Free Speech is not being attacked here, the content of his speech is being attacked and that is a normal part of democracy. You all attack liberals all the time. It is just crap what you say Total and utter nonsense. `````What your post proves is that you have one set of rules for yourself and a different one for every one else. This is your idea of free speech: Liberals can speak and I can ridicule what they say but when conservatives speak and liberals ridicule them we can claim liberals are against Free Speech. In other words, you get to have free speech and those who disagree with you do not because the act of disagreeing with you somehow violates your first amendment rights.

Pack is right, we have lied about the Civil War for too long be pretending it was NOT about slavery. Lied propagated by Southern arrogance and Northern guilt.

We have lied about this history of the Civil War forever. It was absolutely over slavery as so very much evidence shows.````Here is a brief rundownThe 3/5 rule in the Constitution Fugitive slave act 1793The Missouri Compromise 1820Gag Rule 1831-1844John C. Calhoun of SC declares slavery a "positive good for the black man"Compromise of 18501851: MA Senator Charles Sumner is beaten by SC Preston Brooks on the floor of the US Senate, Sumner would remain permanently disabled. The issue: slaveryKansas Nebraska Act 18541858: Lincoln gives his house divided speech1860: Lincoln is elected1860: The Southern states begin to secedeAndrew Stephens Confederate VP claims that slavery and the inferiority of the black man are a great principle-- the "cornerstone: of the Confederacy.1861: Confederate fires on Federal troops attempting to provide food supplies to Fort Sumter. yes THE CONFEDERACY FIRED THE FIRST SHOTS.~~~~~And in that long historical list I forgot Harriet Tubman and the Underground railroad. I forgot the Dred Scott decision. I forgot the Emancipation proclamation and the 13 th Amendment. ~~~~~And Southerners in their arrogance began Jim Crow and harassed the black man for another 100 years until Civil Rights legislation was passed. But even today, Obama got 14% of the vote in the deep south even though much more than 14% of the voters are democrats. There are still plenty of racists, most of whom want to deny that racism exists.~~~~~BTW, the Confederate flag is the symbol of white supremacy even in Europe. ~~~~Why do Southerners persist in refusing to admit our national guilt over slavery? Why do the persist in supporting bad causes decade after decade?~~~~Let it GO. These people are dead and we do not have to carry the guilt of their sins and we do not have to perpetuate their sins by trying to exonerate them.

I thought you might be interested in the aftermath of the Rockville High rape case. Many citizens started protesting county meetings to try to get all illegals out of the Montgomery County schools. About half of those were Asians. This is the first time the two groups have squared off in our county. (Most whites and blacks are staying out of the fray.) The El Salvadoran gangs also killed a girl from Gaithersburg High so there is concern in this county and similarly in affluent northern Virginia. THings have died down because cell phone records reveal that the rape victim had agreed to have sex with one of the guys. I still believe that she did not agree to the two of them and it did turn into a rape situation. Things have died down because the hispanics have not hurt any nonhispanic kids. In our neighborhood though, people are more concerned about possible hispanic crime. The blacks here do not commit much crime.

Packman, I noticed comments made by each of us were removed regarding Mrcharles. Guess he can't deal with criticism unless he's making it. The folks at ADG are very selective regarding comment removal. Guess Mrcharles is special to them.